On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:54:26PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > From: "Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > above were to say, well, if you have the same names, but > > different functionality, why would you want to limit > > the [apr] functionality to that of the least-functional > > api? > > Because APR MUST BE USEFUL ON ALL SUPPORTED PLATFORMS. acknowledged and already understood. btw, been thinking a lot but too busy to write it up: 200 o/s msgs and only 30mins/day to clear them. a) the NAL would go a long way to fulfilling that bold statement and also providing the functionality i will need. b) i have to say, after a lot of thought, that for xvl (but not for a dce/rpc and smb client/server implementation) the apr_namedpipe_xxx() api - as posted - *as long as it's possible to do a select / listen / accept on all platforms* - will be enough. > > ...tell you what, i will write up an API proposal and > > morph some code to an apr api. less talk, more code :) > > That would help the discussion and simply call them remote pipes. i thought maybe ntpipes? remotepipe is just as good. all best, luke
